STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 139 of 2012

Dildar Khan, Son of Late Izhar Khan, R/o- Mohalla- Kabirganj, Ward no. 15, PO & PS- Sasaram, District- Rohtas

                                                                                                                                                                      … Appellant

Versus

1.   Doctor V.S. Chauhan, Haddi Rog Bisheshagya, Roja Road, Sasaram, PO & PS- Sasaram, District- Rohtas

2.  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Manusha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019

                                                                                                                                                                   …. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Rewati Kant Raman

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Tiwari Shwetketu

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 20.02.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/complainant for setting aside the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram in Complaint case no. 25 of 2009 whereby and whereunder complaint case has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant claims himself to be poor labourer and while working on 31.12.2006 fell down as a result of which his left hand got fractured and he went to the clinic of Dr. V.S. Chouhan (respondent no. 1) for his treatment and paid Rs. 500/- as fee. He got X-ray done which showed fracture and the doctor advised  for plaster for which he paid Rs. 5,000/- and his left hand was plastered and he was asked to come after 45 days for removal of plaster.
3. He came to the clinic after 45 days and his plaster was removed but doctor again advised for fresh plaster and he again paid Rs. 5,000/- and fresh plaster was done and subsequently when plaster was removed his hand remained uncured.
4. It is further stated by the complainant that he enquired from the doctor who asked him to return all the prescriptions and he was told that doctor will arrange for his operation at Banaras but subsequently he denied to make any arrangement for operation in Banaras.
5.  He went to Banaras on 23.07.2007 where he was told by the doctor that wrong treatment was done and operation is to be performed for which he will have to pay Rs. 50,000/- but as he was unable to pay he requested local M.P. to get his operation done in government hospital and he went to Safdarganj Hospital but due to lack of fund operation could not be done and his left hand was disabled and he is unable to perform any work.
6. The complainant further stated that due to wrong treatment done by respondent no. 1 his hand was disabled and he can not perform any work to earn his livelihood and is facing starvation and claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for medical negligence and deficiency in service.
7. Notices were issued to the  opposite parties who appeared and filed their written statement in which it was stated by the opposite party no. 1 that claimant had come to his clinic but he had not treated him and opposite party no. 2 Oriental Insurance Company also denied their liability to pay compensation.
8. On 16.06.2011 when the matter was taken up counsel for the claimant filed a time petition stating therein that claimant has gone outside for his treatment and all paper is with him as such case may be adjourned. Counsel for the opposite parties were present. Matter was heard and submission was made on behalf of opposite party no. 1 that claimant is deliberately lingering the matter and on last two dates also time was sought and the matter was adjourned. It was submitted on behalf of opposite party no. 1 that he never treated complainant and no medical prescription with respect to his treatment has been filed by the complainant rather one self prepared purja has been filed which is the basis of complaint case.
9. Opposite party no. 1 has not rendered any medical service and the case is time barred. Complainant is deliberately harassing opposite party no. 1 and wasting his time as such the complaint case may be dismissed. Counsel for Opposite party no. 2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint case.
10. The District Consumer Forum on perusal of record of complaint case held that complainant was directed to remain present along with his advocate but neither complainant is present nor his counsel is present nor any proof of his illness has been filed and accordingly, dismissed the complaint case against which present appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant.
11. After hearing the parties and on perusal of impugned order and materials available on record this court is of the view that complaint case was filed without any basis and only to harass respondent no. 1 on concocted and cooked up story which appears to be improbable. Complaint case filed by complainant is gross abuse of process of court and present appeal is also frivolous and misconceived and is fit to be dismissed with exemplary cost, however, taking a sympathetic view the appeal is dismissed without cost, however complainant is warned to remain cautious in future and not indulge in such nefarious act.  

 (Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                         (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama